Modeling the Relationship between Business Process Reengineering and Organizational Culture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author/s

Thank you for the opportunity to read your study that attempts to model the relationship between business proces reengineering and organizational culture. The proposed topic is very interesting and addresses current issues in management and business process modeling. There is a need for papers that propose a new approach to exploring knowledge in this area and map possibilities for the future. The research approach based on F-AHP proposed in this paper is undoubtedly in line with the latest research trends. The structure of the work is an example of developing the subject of interest by the Author/s. However, in its current stage, the manuscript can still be improved to be more valuable to the readers. Therefore, I encourage you to make some changes that I believe will be made this paper stronger. Please see my detailed comments below. Good luck with your research!

I have provided my comments as follows:

Title –I found it interesting, informative and encouraging to read.

Abstract – The key elements are included. However, I think it would have been stronger if the authors had pointed out the key findings of their study and not just rather generally indicated that ". this study provide decision-makers with guidelines for successful integration of the BBR and OC factors..."

Introduction

The introduction in my opinion does not sufficiently introduce the reader to the topic at hand. In my opinion, this part would have been stronger if the authors had related their considerations to the latest research on the subject. Among other things, the authors indicate that "recently, the BPR has been considered one of the prime approaches ....". However, they refer to papers and studies from almost 15 years ago! I also recommend detailing the purpose of the research and presenting research questions or hypotheses. I also did not find information on the research gap that was identified.

In subtitles, I encourage you to use the full names of terms rather than their abbreviations.

The introduction distinguishes 2 subsections "BPR constructs" and "organizational culture factors". However, they were prepared on the basis of relatively old literature. Almost 2/3 of the references are works older than 10 years. In my opinion, the article would be stronger if the authors referred to the latest research findings from academic literature. Moreover, the considerations in this section are quite general and do not present a critical analysis of the review conducted.

In conclusion, I encourage a strong rebuilding and completion of this part of the paper. I encourage the introduction of a separate section presenting a thorough literature review.

Section 2

I encourage you to indicate this information in Section 1 as well.

Section 3

I believe the framework proposal as presented is correct. However, I did not find information about the study, reference to F-AHP methodology as indicated in the abstract. In my opinion, the rationale for selecting the experts is unclear (why only 22 experts?). It indicated " the most important ten selected BPR constructs are used to use this model " . I found no justification for this choice. How was the selection made, what were the selection criteria? Some of the acronyms in the steps of the procedure are not explained. I do not find a clear reference to F-AHP. In my opinion,  the current presentation of the research process methodology is not clear enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study. I encourage you to improve this part of the paper. I believe that this would be very valuable for further studies on this subject. I encourage you to rename this section to Materials and Methods.

Section 4

Due to ambiguities in the methodology section, it is difficult for me to assess the validity of the findings presented and the proposed model in this section. For example, it is not clear to me the information in Tables 1 and 2. How they were constructed. What does the "importance" scale mean? How was it determined? Also in this section, I encourage the authors to present their findings more clearly. 

Results and disscision

Results are organized in a way that isn’t easy to understand. This is partly due to previous observations.

This is partly due to previous observations. For example, it is surprising to learn that „a panel of experts was formed to study 19 factors, and they identified the top 10 constructs …”. This has not been shown explicitly before. Also, the ranges of correlations (strong, medium weak) in figure 5 are not clear what ranges were taken. I also did not find any reliably presented correlation results.

At the same time, I would like to note that the authors did not present a discussion of their results - a discussion should confront the obtained results with other studies on this topic.

Overall, I find the idea of the study very valuable. However, I encourage you to improve the article so that its content does not raise questions about the scientific regime. 

Conclusion and Remark

I encourage you to present the limitations of this study.

References

The paper makes use of insufficiently up-to-date literature. The literature includes only 39 items (of which as many as 23 are publications presenting the state of knowledge more than 10 years ago): in the case of a scientific article, in my opinion, this is insufficient to confirm a solid review of the literature and preparation of the author for research.

It was a pleasure to read this manuscript. There is a lot of potential in this paper to make an interesting contrubution to the field. I hope you find the above observations useful as you continue to further develop your study. Good luck with your paper!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Greetings,

Thank you for these comments designed to improve our paper,” Modeling the relationship between business process re-engineering and organizational culture,” which we have addressed in the attached file. We greatly appreciate the time and effort put forth by the reviewers and editor to improve our paper. If any responses are unclear or you wish additional changes, please let us know.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall an interesting piece of research that attempts to find the relationship between factors influencing BPR, and elements of organisational culture. The work follows an AHP based approach to assign weighting to the correlated matrix of the two groups of factors. Overall, I believe the work is worthy of investigation, will be interesting to readers, fits well in the Journal, and offers contributions to knowledge. Nonetheless, there are a few areas that would benefit from improvement to bring the submission to a quality suitable for publication:

1. The paper would benefit from a round of proof reading. As a whole the work is written well, yet there are some sentences that are vague or grammatically or logically incorrect. There are also typographical errors that can be fixed following the proof reading. As an instance, within the abstract, you have stated "This paper introduces a novel approach based on the analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) for integrating the factors affecting BPR with OC to ensure the BPR's success." Integrating BPR factors and OC factors/elements seem to be the case, however the sentence denotes integrating BPR factors with just OC. Also fuzzy is missing from the full wording for FAHP acronym, among other instances throughout. 
2. Section 3 (methodology) requires expansion and further clarification.  I would suggest that the authors include further details on the formulas for the algorithm for readers who are unfamiliar with the methodology. A paragraph on the AHP method would also be useful. 
3. Please include data labels for Figures 2 to 4 to enhance readability, and improve comparison between values of factors/bars. 
4. Lines 290 and 291; please provide more details as what the two tables present. 
5. Section 4.1. refers to BPR findings, yet Section 5 is titled results and discussion. Figure 5 which is results should be moved to section 4. Section 5 should then be titled Discussion (only), providing a critical discussion of the results. This new critical discussion section provides you with the opportunity to critically discuss your findings with similar works in the literature, and any implications that your findings will have on the academic knowledge, and professional practice. Currently, the discussion lacks criticality.
6. There seems to be an error in the caption of Figure 5, which can be fixed after recompiling the revised submission. 

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Greetings,

Thank you for these comments designed to improve our paper,” Modeling the relationship between business process re-engineering and organizational culture,” which we have addressed in the attached file. We greatly appreciate the time and effort put forth by the reviewers and editor to improve our paper. If any responses are unclear or you wish additional changes, please let us know.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did a great job revising their article. Their article has gained new value after the changes. I accept all changes made by the authors.

Once again, it was a pleasure to read this manuscript. Congratulations. I encourage the Author/s to further research in this area.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their responses and the changes within their revised submission. I am happy with the extent of changes and corrections,and I would therefore recommend acceptance as is. The final acceptance decision of course lies with the editorial team ,and fulfilling the publisher's requirements.